Category Archives: Uncategorized

Voluntary Return To Work Case

The Court of Appeals for Hamilton County recently dismissed a plaintiff’s sex discrimination hostile work environment claim because the plaintiff had voluntarily returned to her job after quitting it.  Garrison v. Nippert, et al., Hamilton App. No. C-120384, 2013-Ohio-1965 (May 15, 2013).

Plaintiff Garrison alleged that immediately upon beginning her employment with Defendant Nippert, she was subjected to repeated sexual harassment — lewd sexual remarks and unwanted touching.  Ultimately reaching her “breaking point,” the plaintiff resigned.  However, weeks later, the plaintiff returned to work for Defendant Nippert because she was “desperate for money.”

For the full article and external source CLICK HERE

The Waldon Desicion

The District Court for the Southern District of Ohio recently ruled that two African-American plaintiffs stated legally sufficient disparate impact race discrimination claims based upon their terminations pursuant to the defendant School District’s implementation of statutorily-mandated criminal background checks.  Waldon v. Cincinnati Public Schools, No. 1:12-CV-00677 (S.D. Ohio, April 24, 2013).

For the full article click here.

U.S. v Nosal Guilty Verdict

The Digital Quandary Continues: Jury Convicts Executive Recruiter of Trade Secret Theft and Computer Fraud after Crucial Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Trial.

Following a two-week trial before United States District Judge Edward M. Chen in the United States District Court of Northern California, a jury convicted David Nosal, an executive recruiter, of all charges in a six-count indictment including, inter alia, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) and trade secret theft. United States v. Nosal, No. CR-08-0237 EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013). This case illustrates that despite the Ninth Circuit’s narrow reading of the CFAA, the appropriate scope and interpretation of the terms “without authorization” and “exceeds authorized access” remains unsettled.

For the full atricle click here

New Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification

United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on March 7th the release of a revised Form I-9, the Employment Eligibility Verification. Employers are required to use this form to verify the identity and employment eligibility of each individual they hire. The revisions to the I-9 include—for the most part—formatting changes, clarification of instructions, and the inclusion of additional data fields.

The revised I-9 was available for use beginning on March 8th, and employers must begin using the revised form immediately. However, the USCIS acknowledged the difficulty employers face in transitioning immediately to the new form and, accordingly, provided a sixty (60) day grace period to phase in use of the revised form. As such, employers have up to and including May 7, 2013 to update their business processes as necessary to accommodate the new form. After this date, employers who fail to use the revised I-9 may be subject to applicable penalties and fines.

Please click here to read the full article.

Sixth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defendant City of Columbus On Plaintiffs’ Claims Of Race Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment, And Retaliation. Plaintiffs Established Prima Facie Case, But Could Not Prove That City’s Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reasons For Adverse Employment Actions Were Mere Pretext.

The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the City of Columbus (the “City”) on claims of race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation brought by a number of its black employees.  Arnold v. City of Columbus, 6th Cir. Nos. 11-3459, 33-3468, and 11-3815, 2013 WL 628447 (Feb. 20, 2013).  The plaintiffs were able to establish prima facie race discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Ohio Civil Rights Act (the “OCRA”), Ohio Revised Code Ch. 4112, but they could not prove that the City’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its adverse employment actions were pretext.

For the full article click here.

Sixth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment For Employer On Plaintiff’s Claim of Associational Discrimination Under ADA; Dispute Regarding Due Date For Plaintiff’s Return to Work From Family Medical Leave Was Immaterial As Plaintiff Admitted She Would Not Have Returned To Work On Date She Asserted She Was Due Back

The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed that a plaintiff’s failure to return to work from a family medical leave on the due date established by her employer justified summary judgment in favor of the employer on the employee’s claim of associational discrimination under the ADA.  The plaintiff’s dispute as to her return date was immaterial, and did not prevent summary judgment for the employer, because plaintiff admitted in deposition that she would not have returned by the date she asserted she was due back at work.  Bimberg v. Elkton-Pigeon- Bay Port Laker Schools, 6th Cir. No. 12-1311, 2013 WL 174289 (Jan. 17, 2013).

Plaintiff Bimberg was a school bus driver who took a family medical leave to care for her terminally ill husband.  Bimberg’s employer initially granted her the FMLA-mandated 12 weeks of unpaid leave.  Therafter, Bimberg’s union representative was able to secure for her leave from the beginning of the approaching new school semester, January 5, 2009, until the end of the school year in early June 2009.  However, Bimberg later determined that she needed to leave before the start of the new semester, and that she would be away for more than 12 weeks.  Ultimately, her employer granted her unpaid leave of one year, from December 18, 2008, through December 18, 2009.

Continue reading →